Helpful suggestion. Both Stephen and I have been part of the CCWG, as participants, and will do our best to assist in understanding what it going on, which is, admittedly, not easy. In order that we can discharge our responsbilities as Council, I suggest that each Councillor needs to read the Draft Proposal in full at least once. . This is a significant workload, as it is 300 pages long!

any insights that would be of benefit to the council if they fill there are areas that have been overlooked to enable us stay within the tight timelines.

Regards <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-ema...>

<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:

On 12/01/2015 10:11 PM, Byron Holland wrote:

reasonable and we should accept it. Does anybody on the Council object to this recommendation?

Technically yes.

This is too large an issue to be dealt with by triaging. I 100% agree that we should include all the things in the TC suggestion, but to that can not dispose of the matter. It would be entirely insufficient.

I agree with Lesley's position here.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/